NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 May Appeal by plaintiff from opinion and award filed 18 January
|
|
- Claud Gallagher
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 May 2003 PHIL S. TAYLOR, Employee, Plaintiff, v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, Employer, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, Carrier, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff from opinion and award filed 18 January by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 February Edwards & Ricci, P.A., by Brian M. Ricci, for plaintiff appellant. Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by David A. Rhoades and Jaye E. Bingham, for defendant appellee. BRYANT, Judge. Phil S. Taylor (plaintiff) appeals from an opinion and award of the Full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the Commission) filed 18 January 2002 in favor of Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Bridgestone) and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (collectively, defendants). The Commission made the following findings of fact, to which 1 We note that although the opinion and award of both the Deputy Commission and the Full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission refer to defendant-employer as simply Bridgestone/Firestone and its carrier as simply Gallagher Bassett Services, the majority of Industrial Commission forms and orders entered in this case refer to defendant-employer as Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. and its carrier as Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
2 -2- plaintiff assigns no error: [P]laintiff... [has] been employed as a first-stage tire builder for [Bridgestone].... While working for [Bridgestone], on or about [1 March 1997], plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident, namely a right rotator cuff tear, arising out of and in the course of his employment On [3 September 1997] and [13 October 1997], plaintiff was examined by Tally E. Lassiter, Jr., M.D. [(Dr. Lassiter)], an orthopaedist, who recommended surgery to repair plaintiff s right torn rotator cuff. Consequently, plaintiff s rotator cuff was surgically repaired on [4 November 1997]. Thereafter, plaintiff underwent physical therapy during his recuperation and returned to work on or about [20 March 1998]. On [4 May 1998], Dr. Lassiter gave plaintiff indefinite light-duty restrictions of no carrying or lifting greater than twenty to forty (20-40) pounds and no activities above shoulder level. 5. Thereafter, plaintiff did not return to Dr. Lassiter until [14 June 1999], which was over a year from his last visit. Plaintiff complained of right shoulder pain. Dr. Lassiter indicated that plaintiff had nearly full range of motion of both shoulders, good strength and no instability.... Dr. Lassiter diagnosed right shoulder strain, recommended physical therapy, prescribed Celebrex and continued plaintiff s light-duty restrictions. 6. On [6 October 2000], four months after the [deposition] of Dr. Lassiter [in this matter], plaintiff returned to Dr. Lassiter with continued complaints for which Dr. Lassiter prescribed Vioxx, continued light-duty restrictions and requested that 2 Accordingly, these findings are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. See Watson v. Employment Sec. Comm n, 111 N.C. App. 410, 412, 432 S.E.2d 399, 400 (1993).
3 -3- plaintiff return for follow up in six weeks. 7. On [17 March 1998], the parties entered into a partial settlement agreement whereby defendants accepted compensability of plaintiff s claim as of 20 March An I.C. Form 18M was forwarded to the Commission on behalf of plaintiff on [7 December 1999], which was filed within the two year time period as specified in N.C. Gen. Stat. [ ] (i). By way of correspondence dated [23 December 1999,] defendants denied plaintiff s request for future medical treatment. 9. Plaintiff continues to have right shoulder pain and difficulty related to his injury of [1 March 1997], his age and current job duties. Plaintiff testified that his right shoulder bothers him every day and that he has learned to live with pain in order to continue to meet the duties of his employment. Between plaintiff s return to work in March 1998 and Dr. Lassiter s deposition on [20 September 2000], a period of two and one-half years, plaintiff only sought treatment with Dr. Lassiter on two occasions, [4 May 1998] and [14 June 1999]. The Commission also found as fact, to which plaintiff did assign error: 10. The Form 18M filed by plaintiff includes Dr. Lassiter s statement that there is a substantial risk that plaintiff will require additional medical care resulting from his compensable injury. However, the greater weight of the evidence, including Dr. Lassiter s deposition testimony, indicates that there is not [] a substantial risk that plaintiff will require future medical treatment as a result of his injury. Although Dr. Lassiter testified that plaintiff s age and job duties could cause plaintiff to have additional shoulder problems requiring additional treatment, Dr. Lassiter did not have an adequate understanding of plaintiff s job duties. Furthermore, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the likelihood of the risk of future medical treatment falls
4 -4- short of the standard that the risk be substantial and related to the injury itself and not additional difficulties arising from age or activities.... Based on these findings, the Commission concluded: Plaintiff has failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that there is a substantial risk for the necessity of future medical treatment as a result of his compensable injury by accident. The evidence before the Commission came from the deposition testimony of plaintiff, Bishop Tucker (Tucker), a Bridgestone safety engineer, and Dr. Lassiter, plaintiff s treating physician. Tucker testified that the job duties of a first-stage tire builder, like plaintiff, required cutting rubber with a heated knife on a tire assembly machine located about waist high and then placing the cut rubber tire carcasses, which weighed ten to fifteen pounds each, on three different racks located at shoulder, waist, and floor level. In an eight-hour shift, plaintiff produced between 175 to 200 tires. Dr. Lassiter testified, based on his understanding of plaintiff s job duties, that in his opinion plaintiff had a substantial risk of needing future medical treatment. Moreover, plaintiff s original injury made it more likely that plaintiff would need future medical treatment. On cross-examination, Dr. Lassiter stated his understanding of plaintiff s job was that it involved bringing tires up and down from more or less ground level, or knee level, to shoulder level. He was not aware that the knife used to cut the rubber was heated, which makes cutting less stressful, and that if the weight of the tires plaintiff was
5 -5- lifting was within the prescribed weight restrictions, it would probably not cause undue harm. Dr. Lassiter was also confronted with other facts from Tucker s account of plaintiff s job description. Even after being confronted with the facts of plaintiff s job description, Dr. Lassiter maintained that plaintiff s risk of future medical treatment was substantial to [physical therapy], inflammatories, injections it may be a risk, but not to surgery. Dr. Lassiter further testified that the cause of this risk was plaintiff s age and job duties, opining that, if plaintiff had a sedentary job involving mostly desk work, he would not have a substantial chance of needing future medical treatment. Dr. Lassiter also thought that, having had surgery, [i]f defendant had another job where he was lifting a moderate amount of weight repetitively at his age, he would have a substantial risk of needing future medical treatment. On re-direct examination, Dr. Lassiter was asked because [plaintiff] had surgery and is doing the job that he s doing now, that gives him the substantial risk of needing additional treatment? Dr. Lassiter responded, I would have to fall back and say he has a moderate risk of having to have more treatment and problems with that shoulder.... There s not much way around it, unless you make him completely sedentary, in my opinion. The dispositive issue is whether the Commission improperly combined the inquiries into whether plaintiff had a substantial risk of future medical treatment and whether that risk was directly
6 -6- related to his original compensable injury. Plaintiff s sole argument on appeal is the Commission s finding of fact that the greater weight of the evidence indicates that there is not [] a substantial risk that plaintiff will require future medical treatment as a result of his injury is not supported by competent evidence, and, in turn, does not support the Commission s conclusion of law. Appellate review of the Commission s decisions is generally limited to whether competent evidence supports the findings of fact and whether the findings support the Commission s legal conclusions. Parsons v. Pantry, Inc., 126 N.C. App. 540, 541, 485 S.E.2d 867, 868 (1997). Where, however, the Commission s findings are based on an erroneous view of the law or a misapplication of law, they are not conclusive on appeal. Id. (quoting Simon v. Triangle Materials, Inc., 106 N.C. App. 39, 41, 415 S.E.2d 105, 106 (1992)). Subsequent to the establishment of a compensable injury under the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act, an employee may seek compensation under N.C. Gen. Stat for additional medical treatment when such treatment lessens the period of disability, effects a cure or gives relief. Reinninger v. Prestige Fabricators, Inc., 136 N.C. App. 255, 259, 523 S.E.2d 720, 723 (1999) (quoting Parsons, 126 N.C. App. at , 485 S.E.2d at 869). In deciding whether to enter an award allowing a plaintiff s claim to remain open for future medical treatment, the Commission must determine whether there is a substantial risk of the necessity of future medical compensation. See N.C.G.S (2001).
7 -7- If additional medical treatment is required, there arises a rebuttable presumption that the treatment is directly related to the original compensable injury and the employer has the burden of producing evidence showing the treatment is not directly related to the compensable injury. Reinninger, 136 N.C. App. at 259, 523 S.E.2d at 723; see Pomeroy v. Tanner Masonry, 151 N.C. App. 171, 184, 565 S.E.2d 209, (2002); Parsons, 126 N.C. App. at , 485 S.E.2d at 869. Therefore, construing section together with Reinninger and Parsons, once it is determined that the plaintiff has shown there is a substantial risk of the necessity of future medical treatment, there arises a rebuttable presumption that the treatment is directly related to the original compensable injury and the employer has the burden of producing evidence showing the treatment is not directly related to the compensable injury. Reinninger, 136 N.C. App. at 259, 253 S.E.2d at 723. This presumption, sometimes called the Parsons presumption, helps to ensure that an employee is not required to reprove causation each time he seeks treatment for an injury already determined to be compensable. See Parsons, 126 N.C. App. at 542, 485 S.E.2d at 869. In ruling on a Form 18M seeking to keep open the possibility of future medical compensation under section , the Commission must therefore make a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff can show he is at substantial risk of needing future medical treatment and (2) whether the defendants can prove any anticipated future medical treatment will not be reasonably related
8 -8- to the original compensable injury. The shifting burdens of proof make it essential for the Commission to delineate that it is giving the plaintiff the benefit of the rebuttable presumption on the issue of whether the treatment is directly related to the original injury. See Reinninger, 136 N.C. App. at 260, 253 S.E.2d at 724 (case remanded where Commission s findings indicated a failure to give plaintiff the benefit of the presumption that medical treatment now sought was causally related to the compensable injury and better practice was for Commission to clearly delineate the presumption in its findings). In this case, the findings of fact do not delineate between the two separate inquiries, and the Commission appears to have 3 placed the burden of proof for both inquiries on plaintiff. The Commission found the greater weight of the evidence... indicates that there is not a substantial risk that plaintiff will require future medical treatment as a result of his injury and the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the likelihood of the risk of future medical treatment falls short of the standard that the risk be substantial and related to the injury itself and 4 not additional difficulties arising from age or activities. The 3 The dissent concedes some of the language used by the Commission in its findings and conclusions may have blurred the lines between the two stages of inquiry. The dissent also excludes from its excerpt of the Commission s finding those portions in which the Commission combines the separate inquiries without acknowledging the requisite shifting in the burden of proof. 4 The Commission s finding that Dr. Lassiter did not have an accurate understanding of plaintiff s job is immaterial as Dr. Lassiter maintained plaintiff was at substantial risk of needing
9 -9- Commission then concluded [p]laintiff failed to prove... that there is a substantial risk for the necessity of future medical treatment as a result of his compensable injury by accident. As the Commission combined the inquiries, we are unable to discern whether the Commission based its conclusion of law on a finding that: (1) there was no substantial risk of plaintiff needing future medical treatment or (2) any future treatment was the result of plaintiff s age and job duties and could not be 5 related to the original injury. As a result, the Commission s conclusion appears to improperly place the burden of proof on plaintiff to show that future medical treatment is related to the original injury. See id. As noted in Reinninger, [t]he better practice in these section hearings is for the Commission to clearly delineate in its opinion and award that it is giving [p]laintiff the benefit of the Parsons presumption. Id. Therefore, we vacate the opinion and award of the Commission and remand this case for rehearing and findings of fact as to whether: (1) there is a substantial risk of the necessity of future medical treatment and, if necessary, (2) defendants can overcome the presumption that any such future medical treatment is related to future medical treatment even after being confronted with the facts from Tucker s description of the job, opining only that if plaintiff was sedentary that it would reduce his risk of needing treatment. 5 The evidence before the Commission does not clarify the findings as there is evidence on both the issues of whether plaintiff was at substantial risk of needing future medical treatment and whether that risk was directly related to the original injury.
10 -10- the original compensable injury. Vacated and remanded. Judge ELMORE concurs. Judge HUNTER dissents. ============================== HUNTER, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion which vacated and remanded the Commission s opinion and award based on the majority s conclusion that the Commission may have improperly placed the burden of proof on plaintiff to prove that future medical treatment was related to the original injury. In deciding whether to order a defendant to pay for future necessary medical compensation, the Commission must first determine whether there is a substantial risk of the necessity of future medical compensation. N.C. Gen. Stat (2001). If the Commission concludes that the plaintiff has shown such substantial risk of the necessity of future medical compensation, then a rebuttable presumption arises that the treatment is directly related to the original compensable injury and the employer has the burden of producing evidence showing the treatment is not directly related to the compensable injury. Reinninger v. Prestige Fabricators, Inc., 136 N.C. App. 255, 259, 523 S.E.2d 720, 723 (1999) (citing Pittman v. Thomas & Howard, 122 N.C. App. 124, 130, 468 S.E.2d 283, 286 (1996)). It is acknowledged that it is the better practice for the Commission to specifically delineate
11 -11- between these two stages of the inquiry in its findings and conclusions, clearly showing that it has given the plaintiff the benefit of the presumption in the second stage. See Reinninger, 136 N.C. App. at 260, 523 S.E.2d at 724. However, if the Commission concludes that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy his initial burden of proving that there is a substantial risk of future medical treatment, then it is unnecessary for the Commission to even reach the second stage of the inquiry. In this case, while some of the language used by the Commission in its findings and conclusions may have blurred the lines between the two stages of the inquiry, it is clear that the Commission found that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden, thus negating the need to even address the second stage providing plaintiff with the benefit of the presumption. This is evident by the following language included in the Commission s finding of fact number ten: [T]he greater weight of the evidence, including Dr. Lassiter s deposition testimony, indicates that there is not at [sic] a substantial risk that plaintiff will require future medical treatment.... Furthermore, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the likelihood of the risk of future medical treatment falls short of the standard that the risk be substantial.... I now turn to the determination of whether the Commission erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that there is a substantial risk for the necessity of future medical treatment as a result of his compensable injury by accident. The Commission found the following:
12 -12- The Form 18M filed by plaintiff includes Dr. Lassiter s statement that there is a substantial risk that plaintiff will require additional medical care resulting from his compensable injury. However, the greater weight of the evidence, including Dr. Lassiter s deposition testimony, indicates that there is not at [sic] a substantial risk that plaintiff will require future medical treatment as a result of his injury. Although Dr. Lassiter testified that plaintiff s age and job duties could cause plaintiff to have additional shoulder problems requiring additional treatment, Dr. Lassiter did not have an accurate understanding of plaintiff s job duties. Furthermore, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that the likelihood of the risk of future medical treatment falls short of the standard that the risk be substantial and related to the injury itself and not additional difficulties arising from age or activities. These difficulties are properly handled through claims for a change of condition or a new condition. The proper standard of review for this finding of fact and the resulting conclusion of law is whether (1) there is some competent evidence that supports the finding of fact; and (2) whether the finding of fact supports the resulting conclusion of law. Parsons v. Pantry, Inc., 126 N.C. App. 540, 541, 485 S.E.2d 867, 868 (1997). Furthermore, if there is competent evidence that supports the Commission s findings, the existence of contrary evidence does not render those findings inconclusive. Jones v. Candler Mobile Village, 118 N.C. App. 719, 721, 457 S.E.2d 315, 317 (1995). In the case at bar, the Commission acknowledged Dr. Lassiter s initial opinion that there was a substantial risk that plaintiff will require additional medical care resulting from his compensable injury. However, the Commission further found that this opinion was based on an erroneous view of plaintiff s job duties. After
13 -13- plaintiff s actual job requirements were made clear to Dr. Lassiter (i.e., being made aware that the knife used to cut the tires is heated thus greatly reducing the force required to cut them; and that plaintiff only had to lift tires from waist level, not from ground level), the doctor opined that he would have to fall back and say [plaintiff] has a moderate risk of having to have more treatment and problems with that shoulder, despite the restrictions. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, I believe there is competent evidence in the record to support the Commission s finding that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of proving that there was a substantial risk of future medical treatment. I acknowledge that there is also competent evidence in the record to support a finding to the contrary. However, this Court is bound to give deference to the findings of the Commission, as the Commission, and not [the appellate] Court, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their testimony. Pittman v. Thomas & Howard, 122 N.C. App. at 129, 468 S.E.2d at 286 (quoting Russell v. Lowes Product Distribution, 108 N.C. App. 762, 765, 425 S.E.2d 454, 457 (1993)). In addition to concluding that the Commission s finding is supported by competent evidence, we further conclude that this finding supports the Commission s conclusion that [p]laintiff has failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that there is a substantial risk for the necessity of future medical treatment as a result of his compensable injury by accident.
14 -14- Based on the foregoing analysis, I would affirm the Commission s opinion and award.
CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Doris E. Jenkins, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOSE JUAN ANDINO-RIVERA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
More informationLISA KARGER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD KELVIN WOOD, Defendant NO. COA Filed: 06 December 2005
LISA KARGER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD KELVIN WOOD, Defendant NO. COA05-251 Filed: 06 December 2005 1. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation--custody -substantial change in circumstances The trial court did
More informationNO. COA (Filed 4 January 2011) Workers Compensation settlement agreement required language omitted not enforceable
ANDRE M. KEE, Employee, Plaintiff v. CAROMONT HEALTH, INC., Employer, SELF-INSURED, KEY RISK SERVICES, INC., Third-party Administrator, Carrier, Defendants NO. COA10-913 (Filed 4 January 2011) Workers
More informationAn appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Stephen L. Rosen, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC. AND SEDGWICK CMS, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. W. James Condry, II, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA BRANDYWINE CONVALESCENT CARE and ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 July Appeal by plaintiff from orders entered 15 April 2010 and 2
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 25, 2008 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 25, 2008 Session TRINIDY WARE v. McKESSON CORPORATION Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August Appeal by defendant from order entered 15 July 2010 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F SANDRA GREEN, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2005
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F310775 SANDRA GREEN, EMPLOYEE H & L POULTRY PROCESSING, EMPLOYER COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE CO./ AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC. (TPA), INSURANCE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2011 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2011 Session PAUL PITTMAN v. CITY OF MEMPHIS Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-10-0974-3 Kenny W. Armstrong, Chancellor
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOS. F & F TIMMY J. HENSLEY, EMPLOYEE
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOS., EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 CENTRAL ADJUSTMENT CO., INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F705745 TOMMY WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT REMINGTON ARMS CO., INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 GALLAGHER BASSETT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON December 9, 2004 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON December 9, 2004 Session LOUCINDRA TAYLOR V. AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE CO., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Brian McTague, : Petitioner : : v. : : Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Frank Martz Coach : Company), : No. 1485 C.D. 2008 Respondent : Submitted: December
More informationMARY ANN MUNOZ, Petitioner, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, FRY S FOOD STORES, Respondent Employer,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARILYN CHIRILUT and NICOLAE CHIRILUT, UNPUBLISHED November 23, 2010 Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- Appellees, v No. 293750 Oakland Circuit Court WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE. LINDA HARRIS v. AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE LINDA HARRIS v. AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 95-2768-I No. M1998-00611-SC-WCM-CV Filed - June 13, 2000 JUDGMENT ORDER This
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON December 14, 2009 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON December 14, 2009 Session REGINA DAY v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Madison County
More informationNO. 47,037-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered April 11, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. NO. 47,037-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * ALVIN
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F209409 CHRISTOPHER M. CHILDERS, EMPLOYEE GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, EMPLOYER SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
More information31tt the 6upremce Court of OYjio
31tt the 6upremce Court of OYjio,M41 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, vs. Relator-Appellant, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, et al., Case No. 2012-1057 On Appeal from the Franklin
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton ROY TRAVIS BLANKENSHIP MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 0249023 PER CURIAM JULY 2, 2002 CSI/ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES TRUST
More informationDunn, Jason v. United States Infrastructure
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 7-18-2016 Dunn, Jason v. United
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 04/29/2016 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Yellow Transportation, Inc., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) D E C I S I O N
[Cite as Cyrus v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 169 Ohio App.3d 761, 2006-Ohio-6778.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Cyrus, : Appellant, : No. 06AP-378 v. : (C.P.C. No. 05CVD-01-924)
More informationSubmitted January 24, 2019 Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E502382/E709020/F003389
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E502382/E709020/ SANDRA HAWKINS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT JEFFERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 SODEXHO MARRIOTT,
More informationYarbrough, James v. Protective Services Co., Inc.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 4-13-2016 Yarbrough, James
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2011 PATRICIA PARRISH, Appellant, CORRECTED v. Case No. 5D09-3903 CITY OF ORLANDO, Appellee. / Opinion filed February
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 April 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Powell and Alston Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY AND DOMINION RESOURCES INC. MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G600181 MARCI WARREN, EMPLOYEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 June Appeal by plaintiff from order entered on or about 30
NO. COA10-646 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 June 2011 DOUGHERTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. Guilford County No. 09 CVD 7477 M.C. PRECAST CONCRETE, INC., Defendant Appeal by plaintiff
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session SUSAN DANIEL V. BRITTANY SMITH Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 35636 L. Craig Johnson, Judge No. M2011-00830-COA-R3-CV
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 August Durham County No. 10-CVS-5560
NO. COA12-216 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 August 2012 ESTATE OF PHYLLIS REYNOLDS WOODEN, BY AND THROUGH ITS EXECUTRIX, ANDREA WOODEN JONES, Plaintiff, vs. HILLCREST CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON January 29, 2007 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON January 29, 2007 Session ROBERT R. ROBERTSON v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2017 WY 42
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2017 WY 42 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2017 April 27, 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: KAREN HARDY, Appellant (Petitioner), v. S-16-0220 STATE OF WYOMING,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. Wagner v. Vi-Cas Mfg. Co., 2007-Ohio-2383.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio ex rel. : Robert Wagner, : Relator, : v. No. 06AP-405 : Vi-Cas
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-12-0000734 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I DON MARIE CHUNG, Claimant-Appellant, v. MEDASSETS INSOURCE, INC., Employer-Appellee, and HAWAII EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE
More informationBarrett, Buster v. Lithko Contracting, Inc.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 10-25-2016 Barrett, Buster
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 September 2006
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 18 March 2014
NO. COA13-504 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 March 2014 MARCUS ROBINSON, JAMES EDWARD THOMAS, ARCHIE LEE BILLINGS, and JAMES A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiffs, v. Wake County Nos. 07 CVS 1109, 1607, 1411
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 25, 2008 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 25, 2008 Session WILLIAM J. PARKER v. HAPS HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES, LLC
More informationNO. COA Filed: 17 April Workers Compensation settlement agreement payment timeliness
ROBERT MORRISON, Employee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Employer, and KEY RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Servicing Agent, Defendants-Appellees NO. COA06-749 Filed:
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 May Tort Claims Act negligence insufficient findings of fact contributory negligence
NO. COA12-1307 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 May 2013 WILLIAM R. NUNN, Plaintiff, v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (F/K/A DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION), Defendant. North Carolina Industrial Commission
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G KONISHA HARRIS, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED DECEMBER 10, 2012
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G200556 KONISHA HARRIS, EMPLOYEE HUSQVARNA CONSUMER OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, EMPLOYER ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY/ GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D & 5D06-874
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2007 CORINA CHRISTENSEN, INDIVIDUALLY, etc., et al., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D06-390 & 5D06-874 EVERETT C. COOPER, M.D.,
More informationLee, Thomas v. Federal Express Corporation
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 8-26-2016 Lee, Thomas v. Federal
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOYCE KAPP, as Next Friend of ELIZABETH JOHNSON, UNPUBLISHED March 6, 2001 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 216020 Kent Circuit Court MARK A. EVENHOUSE, M.D. and LAURELS LC
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE MAY 22, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE MAY 22, 2003 MAHLE, INC. V. TERRY LEE REESE Direct Appeal from the Hamblen County Chancery Court No. 2000-178 Thomas
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL
Present: All the Justices JONATHAN R. DANDRIDGE v. Record No. 031457 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY Gary A. Hicks, Judge
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Patricia Pujols, : : Petitioner : : v. : No. 2278 C.D. 2014 : Workers Compensation Appeal : Submitted: May 1, 2015 Board (Good Shepherd Rehab : Hospital), : :
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 11/30/2007 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationCASE NO. 1D (1) Whether the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC s) apportionment findings,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RONALD FRANKEL, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D15-1289
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, 1 Koontz, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, 1 Koontz, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice Lacy, Keenan, and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR. v. Record
More informationMeredith, Graeff, Arthur,
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Civil No.: 413502 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1818 September Term, 2016 TRACY BROWN-RUBY v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Meredith, Graeff,
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F CARL HOLT, EMPLOYEE TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC., EMPLOYER
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F412724 CARL HOLT, EMPLOYEE TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC., EMPLOYER LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO., CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 November 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 31 December Appeal by respondent from order entered 14 April 2014 by
NO. COA14-647 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: BABY BOY Wake County No. 13 JT 69 Appeal by respondent from order entered 14 April 2014 by Judge Margaret Eagles
More informationCASE NO. 1D Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Tonya A. Oliver of Bichler, Kelley, Oliver, Longo & Fox, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA BRIAN GONZALEZ, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D15-3185
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 29, 2005 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 29, 2005 Session ROBERT MERRIMON v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 March 2018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA17-596 Filed: 20 March 2018 Forsyth County, No. 16 CVS 7555 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT B. STIMPSON; and BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 August v. Mecklenburg County No. 09 CVD JACQUELINE MOSS, Defendant
NO. COA11-1313 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 August 2012 GREGORY K. MOSS, Plaintiff v. Mecklenburg County No. 09 CVD 19525 JACQUELINE MOSS, Defendant 1. Appeal and Error preservation of issues
More informationHale, Sherry v. Prime Package & Label, LLC
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 7-16-2015 Hale, Sherry v.
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NOS. G309211/G JOSE TURCIOS, Employee. TYSON FOODS, INC., Self-Insured Employer
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NOS. G309211/G402139 JOSE TURCIOS, Employee TYSON FOODS, INC., Self-Insured Employer CLAIMANT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 Hearing
More informationLewis Stokes v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., No. 2616, September Term, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE - MANDATE RULE - WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM.
Lewis Stokes v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., No. 2616, September Term, 2000. LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE - MANDATE RULE - WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM. The circuit court violated the law of the case when
More informationTENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Cincinnati Schools and : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Industrial Commission of Ohio, : Respondents.
[Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Cincinnati Schools, 2006-Ohio-5091.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. Sylvia M. Johnson, : Relator, : v. : No. 05AP-1187 Cincinnati
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE July 26, 2001 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE July 26, 2001 Session STEVEN RAY NORFLEET v. J. W. GOAD CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery
More informationJERRY WAYNE WHISNANT, JR. Plaintiff, v. ROBERTO CARLOS HERRERA, Defendant NO. COA Filed: 2 November 2004
JERRY WAYNE WHISNANT, JR. Plaintiff, v. ROBERTO CARLOS HERRERA, Defendant NO. COA03-1607 Filed: 2 November 2004 1. Motor Vehicles--negligence--contributory--automobile collision--speeding There was sufficient
More informationDavila, Evodia v. Diversified Builders, Inc.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 9-26-2016 Davila, Evodia v.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 15, 2010 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 15, 2010 Session MICHAEL DEVEREUX v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson
More informationLILLIE FREEMAN KEMP, Plaintiff, v. KRISTY GAYLE SPIVEY and TABOR CITY RESCUE SQUAD, Defendants NO. COA Filed: 5 October 2004
LILLIE FREEMAN KEMP, Plaintiff, v. KRISTY GAYLE SPIVEY and TABOR CITY RESCUE SQUAD, Defendants NO. COA03-1022 Filed: 5 October 2004 1. Pleadings compulsory counterclaim negligence total damages still speculative
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Special Action Industrial Commission
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D & 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 24, 2008 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 24, 2008 Session JAMES KENNETH LANE v. PERDUE FARMS, INC. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Putnam
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE May 26, 2009 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE May 26, 2009 Session REGINALD G. PECK v. HOCHMAN FAMILY PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F PAUL CUNNINGHAM, Employee. KEN S TRUCK & REFRIGERATION SERVICE, Employer
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F304082 PAUL CUNNINGHAM, Employee KEN S TRUCK & REFRIGERATION SERVICE, Employer FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
More informationBoyd, Rosemary v. Hewlett Packard Co.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 7-24-2015 Boyd, Rosemary v.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G LINDA STERLING, EMPLOYEE
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G009765 LINDA STERLING, EMPLOYEE WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., EMPLOYER CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC, CARRIER/TPA CLAIMANT
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F304327 DANITA McENTIRE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 March Appeal by Defendant from order entered 29 April 2013 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA GLENN BENDER, vs» NORFOLK IRON & METAL COMPANY, APPEAL FROM THE NEBRASKA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COURT
86-095 I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA o GLENN BENDER, vs» Plaintiff-Appellee, NORFOLK IRON & METAL COMPANY, APPEAL FROM THE NEBRASKA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COURT Judge Ted W. Vrana Judge Mark A. Buchholz
More informationCoon v. Commercial Warehouse and Cartage, Inc.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 10-1-2018 Coon v. Commercial
More informationCASE NO. 1D Walter C. Wyatt of Bradham, Benson, Lindley, Blevins, Bayliss & Wyatt, P.L.L.C., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ERNESTO O. SIERRA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D15-0094
More informationOpinion. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan FILED JULY 24, SANDRA J. WICKENS and DAVID WICKENS, Plaintiff-Appellees, and
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan 48909 Opinion C hief Justice Justices Maura D. Corrigan Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Clifford W. Taylor Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J.
More informationSubmitted December 20, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G CATHERINE WILLIAMSON, Employee. BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, INC.
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G205226 CATHERINE WILLIAMSON, Employee BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, INC., Employer STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
More information[Cite as State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 75.]
[Cite as State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Indus. Comm., 85 Ohio St.3d 75, 1999-Ohio-205.] THE STATE EX REL. LTV STEEL COMPANY, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO; GRECU, APPELLANT. [Cite as State
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60764 Document: 00513714839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationAPRIL BATTAGLIA NO CA-0339 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL CHALMETTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., DR. O'SULLIVAN AND DR. KELVIN CONTREARY FOURTH CIRCUIT
APRIL BATTAGLIA VERSUS CHALMETTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., DR. O'SULLIVAN AND DR. KELVIN CONTREARY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2012-CA-0339 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM ST. BERNARD
More informationNO. 44,080-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered February 25, 2009. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. NO. 44,080-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * *
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, McCullough and Senior Judge Willis Argued by teleconference TERRY LYNN MAY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1439-11-3 JUDGE STEPHEN R. McCULLOUGH
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 May 2013
NO. COA12-1071 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 May 2013 THE ESTATE OF DONNA S. RAY, BY THOMAS D. RAY AND ROBERT A. WILSON, IV, Administrators of the Estate of Donna S. Ray, and THOMAS D. RAY,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MYRTLE FLOSSIE MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 16, 2016 v No. 320246 Eaton Circuit Court WILLIAM THOMAS SWAFFORD and COCA- LC No. 12-000969-NI COLA REFRESHMENTS
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F307580 TEENA E. McGRIFF, EMPLOYEE ADDUS HEALTHCARE, INC., EMPLOYER AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PENN.,
More information[Cite as State ex rel. George v. Indus. Comm., 130 Ohio St.3d 405, 2011-Ohio-6036.]
[Cite as State ex rel. George v. Indus. Comm., 130 Ohio St.3d 405, 2011-Ohio-6036.] THE STATE EX REL. GEORGE, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as State ex rel. George
More informationANTHONY CURTIS SLOAN, JR. Plaintiff v. CHENAY SANDERS SLOAN, Defendant v. ANTHONY C. SLOAN, SR. and KATHY SLOAN, Intervenors NO.
ANTHONY CURTIS SLOAN, JR. Plaintiff v. CHENAY SANDERS SLOAN, Defendant v. ANTHONY C. SLOAN, SR. and KATHY SLOAN, Intervenors NO. COA03-905 Filed: 4 May 2004 1. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation--visitation--grandparents
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE October 22, 2008 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE October 22, 2008 Session AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION v. J. J. LEWIS Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** James Gonzales applied for disability and supplemental security income
JAMES GONZALES, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 19, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. CAROLYN
More information